A. Were Defendant's Sixth Amendment right to an unbiased jury violated as-applied to him where a juror was questioned after voir dire under "voir-dire-like" conditions but Defendant was not allowed to use an available peremptory strike, as the government has not and cannot prove a "historical analogue" to only allowing for-cause strikes after voir dire?
Defendant answers "yes".

B. Did the District Court abuse its discretion by failing to strike a juror for cause during voir dire who lied during voir dire and failed to correct her lie during a subsequent defacto reopening of voir dire, and whose explanation was simply scientifically implausible?
Defendant answers "yes".

Whether a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury is violated when a juror is questioned after voir dire under voir-dire-like conditions without allowing the defendant to exercise an available peremptory strike, and whether the district court abused its discretion by failing to strike a juror for cause who lied during voir dire and failed to correct the lie